The Cecil Whig., 1887-10-15
OBEY THE LAW.

NCl( OulSSt vi lIS SuilOlI9ii IN oS1o uP .
man OF straw in the shape of magnifled
difficulties" in the prosecution of this
and similar cases, and then proceeds
by logic { p peculiarly his own to de
molish his fictitious creation. What
difficulties we ask him hedged about
the prosecution of Confer, other than
those which from time immemorial have
embarrassed justice in the trial ofevery
liquor case or indeed any other crimi-
nal case2 Certainly unwilling witnesses
and disagreeing jurors are not new
difficulties of trial under prohibitory
law or any other law. They were just
as potential factors in thwarting justice
under the old low license system, and
will doubtless ever continue to be such
under any system either restrictive or
absolutely prohibitory.
Now as usual in all cases where men
vainly attempt to confound practical
moral support of law with a mere
sentimental observance of it, the editor
of the Democrat descends to specious
reasoning, by which to draw unwar-
ranted conclusions from unsound prem
ises. He assumes that the difficulties
in prosecuting successfully violations OF
prohibitory law grow out OF the un'
willingness OF reputable men to lend
themselves in declaring that morally
wrong, which is only legally so. " What
Jh. Confer is charged 7,1M doing is
not aeyone- IN itself but only 7t2ons
because tie lac fojbidS H' asserts the
editor of ZHc Democrat. We deny
any such an assumption. There is nc
public question which so intimately
concerns the moral welfare of every
community as the suppression of the
traffic in intoxicating liquors. 1t is the
settled conviction that the traffic is
maIa in Sc. that it is morally wrong tC
infllct society with the curses of drunk
enness and pauperism to convert sober
men into criminals and outcasts, that has
wrought in recent years SO marked a
revolution in public sentiment with
reference to this traffic. The whole
question is pre-eminently moral one
So emphatically is this the case, that
politicians have done their best to rele-
gate it to the churches, and to Conflne
it within the limits of sectarian and
denominatlonal work. But the pres
sure of this reform has broken down
the barriers of churches and denomina-
tions. 1t has taken a deep hold upon
the popular mind, and today an ire
sistablc sentiment is at work throughout
the length and breadth of the land,
having tor its inspiration the solemn
conviction, that the traffic in intoxica-
ting liquors as beverage is not only a
great moral wrong, but tic great moral
wrong of the age We live in. If we
are correct, what becomes of the nice
distinction between acts that are legally
wrong but morally right with which the
editor of the Democrat seeks to con-
found the foolish?
How ingenuously he attempts to lay
down a rule of moral conduct for his
readers IN the fine distinction they are
to draw, between law which prescribes
a penalty tor doing something morally
wrong, and another law which creates
a penal offence for the doing Of some
thing not in itself wrong.
But suppose that the act of selling
Intoxicating liquors is not wrong in
itself, as the editor of the Democrat
asserts, but has been made statutory
offence, or maLa b10hi6ita, instead OF
mdLa in SC as we insist it is. What
justification can he plead for his evil
dent attempt to weaken popular respect
tor the law, and which is the manifest
tendency Of such attacks upon it?
Will he assert affirmatively as he does
in his editorial implicitly, that the Pro-
hibitory law as it now stands in Cecil
county, is any the less binding upon
the acts and consciences of our peo-
pie, or that it's violation is any the less
criminal for that reason? Is it not IN
either case as law a mandatory rule
of civil conduct Does it not authori-
lively say to every citizen of the county,
"abstain from this or submit to the pen
atty it provides?' Can any man by
his own act absolve himself from the
Obligation to obey the law as long as it
remains upon the statute books? Mr..
Crookshanks does not say that he can,
but ne insinuates that there is a court
of conscience into which the viOlator
of the law may carry his appeal tol
justification of the act Of violation.
This is specious doctrine and a
dangerous one. Is the justification for
defiance OF law, and disregard of con-
stituted authority to be found in the
varying individual opinions and dog
mas of men? The socialist rejects the
idea of a legal individual title in land
The Anarchist believes all laws are
merely arbitrary enaCtments, restrictive
of his individual liberty, and in nc
sense binding on his conscience
In the lines Of their particular be,
liefs no law, no authority is to in.
terfefe. They are restrained from put
ting their heresies into practice solely
by the weight Of superiority of mum,